SPAM-Project Proposal Canning SPAM: Before

¶ … SPAM-Project Proposal

Canning SPAM: Before it Kills the Goose

The background of this research project is the proliferation of unwanted, unsolicited junk email which is clogging the arteries of the Internet. Bill Gates predicted some years back that we would solve the SPAM problem by 2006. It has not happened, and the problem is worse than ever. Since much of what I do and plan to do in the future depends upon the availability and accessibility of this vast resource I really wonder if it is being slowly spammed to death.

SPAM is not new, as it was junk mail for a long time. However, the senders of junk snail mail paid to send it. Email has historically not been limited as to how much you can receive. Very generous bandwidth use and data transfer has set very high limits on sending per IP address, that is, per each particular account on each particular computer. Now, some ISPs, of note AOL and MSN have actually set a sending limit on all accounts. MSN's limit is 5000, and if you receive any complaints that is reduced to 250 per account per day. After three bonafide complaints your account may be blocked and you have to call MSN tier two tech support to get it opened again. After three or four calls to MSN tier two technical support, you are referred to Microsoft. Does this work? Well, sort of.

News of SPAM is all over the Internet and conferences on seeking solutions abound. One study released in November says that SPAM now accounts for 91% of all new emails, and has increased 120% over the past twelve months. Anti-spam laws have been passed and are being enforced whenever possible. The problems of enforcement have contributed to the rise in the volume of SPAM on the net.

The fact is that while the Internet has brought us great power and benefits, abuses abound, including all kinds of unethical marketing tactics, identity theft, abuse of children, fraud, illegal transfer of resources and information and plagiarism or theft of intellectual property. Of these SPAM, under the topic of unethical marketing techniques, is causing the most problems.

2. Aims

The aims of this research will be threefold:

To discover what the accumulated literature has to say on this subject: how bad is it really, and what has been done about it, and what can we hope to do.

Who is this affecting and how? Where does it come from and why is it a problem, that is, why do spammers spam?

To identify the actual seriousness and possible and probable consequences of the huge mountain of SPAM in email; how much traffic are we talking about (some sources are now saying 90% of all email is SPAM. How much is this costing ISPs and other companies in lost productivity? Who is paying now? Who should pay for the solution?

To research possible solutions to the problem, what they involve and how much will they cost? Who ill pay? What are the legal implications of SPAM and can we really do much legally? What laws are in existence? Are they being enforced?

3. Objectives

The true objective of this research is to become extremely well informed on the problem of SPAM over the Internet. Other methods of spamming will be very briefly looked at and compared to Internet SPAM for origin, motivation, reasons for success or failure, reasons it continues, and consequences and solutions. I would like to discover how and why this became such a huge problem and why it continues. This involves looking at different types of SPAM, how they work and what they do. For example, how can one get SPAM from one's self? Why would anyone use this tactic?

A personally know of many people who have suffered at least lost productivity from SPAM. There are even a few among my acquaintances who have suffered actual financial loss. I know that SPAM has cost me time, which I consider has value.

There are several classes of victims, but I can only discern two classes of beneficiaries of this electronic blight. The victims actually pay to be victimized, though much against their will, and without their expressed permission. It would be good if we could find some way to compensate the victims at the cost of the beneficiaries.

In order to do a good job on this research I need to discover all the various ways SPAM is used, produced and what the eventual aim might be. I need to investigate the origins, methods of proliferation and look closely at possible solutions with their attendant consequences. What solutions have been tried with what results? What more could be done?

I believe this is really an important subject area, as it is nearly crippling the Internet now with the unbelievable traffic load. ISPs do not know what to do, although some have applied limits. Free email may be gone forever soon if we do not solve this problem. Businesses may have to find alternative methods for communication as have many scientific organizations already. Should we look at these? For me, the Internet is a magnificent banquet of information, and while it all needs to be filtered intelligently, it holds many useful resources and has changed the world. I really do not want to see this come crashing down, nor would I like to see it become a resource only for those who can pay high fees.

4. Research Methods

In order to limit the scope of this research, I plan to focus only on email SPAM with a marketing aim. I will describe the other types, because they are also a problem. However, ordinary marketing email SPAM is not totally understood. There are too many people who actually buy things from SPAM, not knowing of the damage it does. And, of course, many if not most, of the spammers do not see it as unethical or they would not do it. They may see only their own profits, and not the damage it does. Some, of course, don't care.

Research on current laws and enforcement and also financial information on costs etc. will also be included.

Research methods will include a broad review of current literature: books, journal articles, new items, Internet articles, magazine articles, usenet discussions and BLOGS. These will be filtered for the relevance of the content and the sources.

Once the relevant information has been collected I will look at other research methods. For example I am certain that there are published surveys, reports and white papers on this subject. Microsoft publishes new on SPAM and its efforts to beat it. I may also try to conduct some valid surveys, especially with major ISPs.

5. Research Design

Research of existing literature will consist of searching library databases, Journal databases, books in print, interactive resources, such as encyclopedias and other collections of information, online sites about the topic and major online publishers, such as ZDNet, CNET, computer magazine publishers, Techie sites like Tech Republic and business sites for information of damage costs etc.

Once the major players, corporations, government departments and ISPs, are identified a brief survey will be created and I will seek ways to get cooperation on filling these in.

I will search law libraries and financial and marketing resources for information on the current laws world wide, and the cost of SPAM to individuals, companies and the global economy.

6. Literature Design

After collecting as much information as possible, I will filter it for relevance and apply the information gained to the questions which need answers, mainly: How much is SPAM costing? Who is paying the cost? What is being done about it? Is that working? Why or why not? What other methods could be used and what are their expected outcomes.

7. Tasks:

1. Review current literature and create an Annotated Bibliography

2. Identify the major companies, government entities (national and international) and ISPs involved.

3. Locate major ISP contacts

4. Review and assess current SPAM laws and their efficacy

5. Research and collate financial information

6. Organize the document format

7. Write the content concerning what all of this means and how important it is.

8. Create and send survey.

9. Analyze collected data

10 Present findings.

11. Credit sources

12 Publish results

8. Project Plan

Timescale: need perhaps 2-3 weeks to search and annotate current literature. Findings from literature will be collected as I go in a database sorted on what portion or what question they answer. It will require at least one week to filter all the data and then design the survey along the lines of unanswered questions, probably those involving stats and financial information. It will require two days to correlate the results of the survey with all the other data. I will need an additional week to make sense of the whole thing, and a few more days to write up conclusions and action plans.

9. References www.spamlaws.comSpam Laws: Articles. http://www.spamlaws.com/

Questia Online Database www.questia.com

JSTOR.

A www.jstor.com

David E. Sorkin, Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 35 U.S.F.L. Rev. 325 (2001).

Google and other search engines:

www.google.com

Encarta Encyclopedia online. 2006

10. Appendix

Articles collected for Review so far (just a sampling of articles on SPAM laws) www.spamlaws.comSpam Laws: Articles

David E. Sorkin, www.jcil.orgSpam Legislation in the United States, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 3 (2003).

David E. Sorkin, www.spamlaws.comTechnical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 35 U.S.F.L. Rev. 325 (2001).

David E. Sorkin, www.spamlaws.comUnsolicited Commercial E-Mail and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 45 Buffalo L. Rev. 1001 (1997).

David E. Sorkin, Revocation of an Internet Domain Name for Violations of "Netiquette": Contractual and Constitutional Implications, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 587 (1997).

Dominique-Chantale Alepin, Note, "Opting-Out": A Technical, Legal and Practical Look at the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 28 Colum. J.L. & Arts 41 (2004).

Elizabeth A. Alongi, Note, www.law.arizona.eduHas the U.S. Canned Spam?, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 263 (2004).

Kenneth C. Amaditz, in Virginia: Model Legislation to Control Junk E-mail, 4 Va. J.L. & Tech. 4 (1999).

Michelle Armond, www.law.berkeley.eduCyberlaw: State Internet Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 379 (2002).

Stephanie Austria, Note, Forgery in Cyberspace: The Spoof Could be on You!, 5 Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 2 (2004).

Ian Ayres & Matthew Funk, Marketing Privacy, 20 Yale J. On Reg. 77 (2003).

Susan M. Ballantine, Note, Computer Network Trespasses: Solving New Problems with Old Solutions, 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 209 (2000).

Richard C. Balough, www.jcil.orgThe Do-Not-Call Registry Model Is Not the Answer to Spam, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 79 (2003).

David T. Bartels, Note, Canning Spam: California Bans Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 30 McGeorge L. Rev. 420 (1999).

W. Parker Baxter, Recent Development, Has Spam Been Canned? Consumers, Marketers, and the Making of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 8 N.Y.U.J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 163 (2004).

J. Brian Beckham, Casenote, www.jcil.orgIntel v. Hamidi: Spam as a Trespass to Chattels -- Deconstruction of a Private Right of Action in California, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 205 (2003).

Yochai Benkler, Net Regulation: Taking Stock and Looking Forward, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1203 (2000).

Steven E. Bennett, Note, Canning Spam: CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 545 (1998).

Arminda B. Bepko, Note, A State-by-State Comparison of Spam Laws, 13 Media L. & Pol'y 20 (2004).

Jordan M. Blanke, www.smu.eduCanned Spam: New State and Federal Legislation Attempts to Put a Lid on It, 7 Comp. L. Rev. & Tech. J. 305 (2004).

John E. Brockhoeft, Evaluating The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 4 Loy. Law & Tech. Ann. 1 (2004).

Dan L. Burk, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf-abstract_id=223513" The Trouble with Trespass, 4 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 27 (2000).

Michael W. Carroll, www.law.berkeley.eduGarbage In: Emerging Media and Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial Solicitations, 11 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 233 (1996).

Dannielle Cisneros, Issue Brief, www.law.duke.eduDo Not Advertise: The Current Fight Against Unsolicited Advertisements, 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 10.

Shelley Cobos, Note, www.lawtechjournal.comA Two-Tiered Registry System to Regulate Spam, 2003 UCLA J.L. Tech. 5.

Evan Cramer, Issue Brief, www.law.duke.eduThe Future of Wireless Spam, 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 21.

Ben Dahl, www.jcil.orgA Further Darkside to Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail? An Assessment of Potential Employer Liability for Spam E-Mail, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 179 (2003).

Joseph D'Ambrosio, Should "Junk" E-Mail Be Legally Protected?, 17 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 231 (2001).

Patty M. DeGaetano, Note, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Private Property, Keep Out -- The Unworkable Definition of Injury for a Trespass to Chattels Claim in Cyberspace, 40 Cal W.L. Rev. 355 (2004).

David Dickinson, Note, An Architecture for Spam Regulation, 57 Fed. Comm. L.J. 129 (2004).

Michael B. Edwards, Recent Development, www.jolt.unc.eduA Call to Arms: Marching Orders for the North Carolina Anti-Spam Statute, 4 N.C.J.L. & Tech. 93 (2002).

Christopher D. Fasano, Comment, www.law.syr.eduGetting Rid of Spam: Addressing Spam in Courts and in Congress, 2000 Syracuse L. & Tech. J. 3. [66K PDF]

George H. Fibbe, Screen-Scraping and Harmful Cybertrespass after Intel, 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1011 (2004).

Michael A. Fisher, Note, The Right to Spam? Regulating Electronic Junk Mail, 23 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 363 (2000).

Credence E. Fogo, www.jcil.orgThe Postman Always Rings 4,000 Times: New Approaches to Curb Spam, 18 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 915 (2000).

R. Jonas Geissler, www.wm.eduLaws Violate the First Amendment, 2001 J. Online L. art. 8.

Brian G. Gilpin, www.jcil.orgAttorney Advertising & Solicitation on the Internet: Complying with Ethics Regulations and Netiquette, 13 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 697 (1995).

Eric Goldman, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=487162" Where's the Beef? Dissecting Spam's Purported Harms, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 13 (2003).

Jack L. Goldsmith & Alan O. Sykes, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=246100" The Internet and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 110 Yale L.J. 785 (2001).

David A. Gottardo, Comment, www.jcil.orgCommercialism and the Downfall of Internet Self-Governance: An Application of Antitrust Law, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 125 (1997).

Scot M. Graydon, Much Ado About Spam: Unsolicited Advertising, the Internet, and You, 32 St. Mary's L.J. 77 (2000).

Seth Grossman, Note, Keeping Unwanted Donkeys and Elephants Out of Your Inbox: The Case for Regulating Political Spam, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1533 (2004).

Anne E. Hawley, Comment, Taking Spam Out of Your Cyberspace Diet: Common Law Applied to Bulk Unsolicited Advertising via Electronic Mail, 66 UMKC L. Rev. 381 (1997).

William E. Hornsby, Jr., www.jcil.orgSpamming for Legal Services: A Constitutional Right within a Regulatory Quagmire, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 97 (2003).

Diane E. Horvath & John S. Jung, 1999 Technology Legislation in Virginia, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1037 (1999).

Christopher Hurld, Current Development, www.findarticles.comUntangling the Wicked Web: The Marketing of Legal Services on the Internet and the Model Rules, 17 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 827 (2004).

David R. Johnson, Susan P. Crawford & John G. Palfrey, Jr., www.vjolt.netThe Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, 9 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9 (2004).

Carol Jones, News, E-Mail Solicitation: Will Opening a "Spam-Free" Mailbox Ever Be a Reality?, 15 Loyola Consumer L. Rev. 69 (2002).

Steven Kam, Note, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Trespass to Chattels and a Doctrine of Cyber-Nuisance, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 427 (2004).

Jennifer M. Kappel, Comment, Government Intervention on the Internet: Should the Federal Trade Commission Regulate Unsolicited E-Mail Advertising?, 51 Admin. L. Rev. 1011 (1999).

Sabra-Anne Kelin, Note, State Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 435 (2001).

Jeremiah Kelman, Note, E-Nuisance: Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail at the Boundaries of Common Law Property Rights, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 363 (2004).

Joseph P. Kendrick, Recent Development, www.lclark.edu7 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 563 (2003).

Dennis W.K. Khong, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=507942" An Economic Analysis of Spam Law, 1 Erasmus L. & Econ. Rev. 23 (2004).

Shari A. Kolnicki, The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Its Burden on Small Business: An Evaluation of the Law and Its Ramifications on Telecommunication Advances, 28 Cap U.L. Rev. 223 (1999).

Jeffrey L. Kosiba, Comment, Legal Relief from Spam-Induced Internet Indigestion, 25 Dayton L. Rev. 187 (1999).

Ari Lanin, Note, Who Controls the Internet? States' Rights and the Reawakening of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 73 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1423 (2000).

Dianne Plunkett Latham, Electronic Commerce in the 21st Century: Spam Remedies, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1649 (2001).

Cathryn Le, Note, www.richmond.eduHow Have Internet Service Providers Beat Spammers?, 5 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9 (1998).

Thomas K. Ledbetter, Comment, Stopping Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail: Why the CAN-SPAM Act Is Not the Solution to Stop Spam, 34 Sw U.L. Rev. 107 (2004).

Richard C. Lee, Note, Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 417 (1998).

Mark A. Lemley, The Law and Economics of Internet Norms, 73 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1257 (1998).

Lawrence Lessig, www.lessig.orgThe Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 501 (1999).

Lawrence Lessig & Paul Resnick, www.si.umich.eduZoning Speech on the Internet: A Legal and Technical Model, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 395 (1999).

John Magee, The Law Regulating Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail: An International Perspective, 19 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 333 (2003).

Christopher Scott Maravilla, The Feasibility of a Law to Regulate Pornographic, Unsolicited, Commercial E-Mail, 4 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 117 (2002).

Joshua A. Marcus, Note, Commercial Speech on the Internet: Spam and the First Amendment, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 245 (1998).

Erin Elizabeth Marks, Comment, Spammers Clog In-boxes Everywhere: Will the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 Halt the Invasion?, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 943 (2004).

Elizabeth Phillips Marsh, Purveyors of Hate on the Internet: Are We Ready for Hate Spam?, 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 379 (2000)

Daniel L. Mayer, Note, Attacking A Windmill: Why the CAN SPAM Act Is a Futile Waste of Time and Money, 31 J. Legis. 177 (2004).

Michael D. McConathy, Comment, Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. F.C.C. And Moser v. F.C.C.: How Much Should the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Restrict Your Phone, Fax and Computer, 26 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 153 (1996).

R. Clifton Merrell, Note, Trespass to Chattels in the Age of the Internet, 80 Wash U.L.Q. 675 (2002).

Karin Mika, www.richmond.eduInformation v. Commercialization: The Internet and Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 4 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 6 (1998).

Gary Miller, www.vanderbilt.eduHow to Can Spam: Legislating Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 127 (2000). [129K PDF]

Steven Miller, Comment, Washington's "Spam Killing" Statute: Does It Slaughter Privacy in the Process?, 74 Wash. L. Rev. 453 (1999).

Anne P. Mitchell, www.jcil.orgVendor Liability for Advertising in Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 137 (2003).

Sameh I. Mobarek, Note, The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Was Congress Actually Trying to Solve the Problem or Add to it?, 16 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 247 (2004).

Gary S. Moorefield, Note, www.bu.eduSPAM -- It's Not Just for Breakfast Anymore: Federal Legislation and the Fight to Free the Internet From Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 5 B.U.J. Sci. & Tech. L. 10 (1999). [161K PDF]

Adam Mossoff, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=460720" Spam -- Oy, What a Nuisance!, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 625 (2004).

Paul K. Ohm, Comment, On Regulating the Internet: Usenet, A Case Study, 46 UCLA L. Rev. 1941 (1999).

Max Ochoa, Note, Recent State Laws Regulating Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 16 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 459 (2000).

Bridget M. O'Neill, Comment, www.jcil.orgWireless Spam This Way Comes: An Analysis of the Spread of Wireless Spam and the Present and Proposed Measures Taken To Stop It, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 229 (2003).

Don Passenger & Jeff Kirkey, http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=552&volumeID=42&viewType=archiveUn-Canned Spam: Getting It Back in the Tin, 82:3 Mich. B.J. 36 (Mar. 2003).

David G. Post, www.temple.eduInternet: Of Black Holes and Decentralized Law-Making in Cyberspace, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 70 (2000).

Ethan Preston, Finding Fences in Cyberspace: Privacy and Open Access on the Internet, 6.1 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 3 (2001).

Matthew B. Prince & Patrick A. Shea, www.jcil.orgAfter CAN-SPAM, How States Can Stay Relevant in the Fight Against Unwanted Messages: How a Children's Protection Registry Can Be Effective, and Is Not Preempted, under the New Federal Anti-Spam Law, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 29 (2003).

Matthew T. Rollins, www.jcil.orgExamination of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct Pertaining to the Marketing of Legal Services in Cyberspace, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 113 (2003).

Laura Quilter, The Continuing Expansion of Cyberspace Trespass to Chattels, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 421 (2002).

Monique Redford, Comment, www.spamlaws.comThe Indecency of Unsolicited Sexually Explicit Email: A Comment on the Protection of Free Speech v. The Protection of Children, 26 Seattle U.L. Rev. 125 (2002).

Cindy M. Rice, Comment, www.jolt.unc.eduThe TCPA: A Justification for the Prohibition of Spam in 2002?, 3 N.C.J.L. & Tech. 375 (2002).

Ashley L. Rogers, Note, Is There Judicial Recourse to Attack Spammers?, 6 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 338 (2004).

John D. Saba, Jr., Comment, Internet Property Rights: E-Trespass, 33 St. Mary's L.J. 367 (2002).

John D. Saba Jr., 2003 Legislative Update, Anti-Spam Legislation: Eproclamation: No More Spam in Texas, 66 Tex B.J. 660 (2003).

Jan H. Samoriski, www.umd.umich.eduUnsolicited Commercial E-mail, the Internet and the First Amendment: Another Free Speech Showdown in Cyberspace?, 43 J. Broadcasting & Electronic Media (2000).